CBFC explains to Madras High Court why Rajinikanth-starrer Coolie was given ‘A’ certificate

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) on Monday (August 25, 2025) explained to the Madras High Court the processes followed for certifying movies, and why Rajinikanth-starrer Coolie was issued an ‘A’ certificate, thereby making it impermissible for those below 18 years of age to watch the movie.

Appearing before Justice T.V. Thamilselvi, Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan said, as per procedure, Coolie was first viewed by the examining committee, comprising one officer from the CBFC and four members drawn from various walks of life in order to represent the audience in theatres.

Explaining the mode of selecting those four members, the ASG said, the CBFC maintains a panel of around 200 members, from among whom the four individuals are drawn randomly. He said, the examining committee had unanimously found Coolie to be fit only for an ‘A’ certification.

When this was conveyed to the representatives of the film production firm Sun TV Network Limited, the latter insisted on sending the matter to the revising committee, comprising one officer of the CBFC and nine members drawn from various walks of life, thereby giving them a much wider representation.

The revising committee, too, unanimously came to a conclusion that Coolie was fit to be viewed only by the adults, primarily due to its violent scenes. Thereafter, the production firm made an application under a prescribed format for the issuance of an ‘A’ certificate and released the movie on August 14, 2025.

After having released the movie in theatres by accepting the ‘A’ certificate, the production firm could not now approach the High Court by way of an appeal under the Cinematograph Act of 1952 and insist that it should be given only U/A certificate and not ‘A’ certificate, the ASG argued.

“The first opinion of the examining committee was an unanimous opinion and the second opinion of the revising committee was also an unanimous opinion. Both the committees had not differed but concurred in their opinion. Therefore, Coolie cannot be given U/A certificates unless further cuts are made,” he asserted.

On the other hand, senior counsel J. Ravindran, representing the production house, vehemently refuted the CBFC’s claim of the production firm having accepted the ‘A’ certificate and said, the production firm had never made any such acceptance and contended that it had a statutory right to challenge the certification.

Stating that movies with much more violence had been granted U/A certificates in the recent past, he said, it was unfair on the part of the board to have issued an ‘A’ certificate for Coolie, which was being watched by children in foreign countries with much stricter laws than in India.

After hearing both sides, the judge reserved her orders on a civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the production house challenging the CBFC’s decision.